Death Penalty Argumentative Analysis

Today, the death penalty is an issue that has raised many questions in regards to its morality. Many people believe that the death penalty is immoral for a number of factors, some of which being the execution of innocents, the arbitrary application of the death penalty, and the racial and economic discrimination with the system. Many others believe that the death penalty is moral, for it gives people what they deserve, the criminals were fully aware of the consequences that may fall upon them, and that justice is being served for the victims and families of the victims still suffering from the actions of the criminal. In this paper I will argue that from a Deontological standpoint, the death penalty is morally just. To do this, I will first describe the basics of the theory of Deontology in general, so that you, the reader, can begin to understand some of the fundamental beliefs that Kant, the father of Deontology,
Our will, through our own choosing, is good when it operates from reason and duty alone. In this way, the Categorical Imperative guides us to being truly moral. Further, freedom is the ability to be motivated by your own choices, and to be able to deliberate and act on reason. So why be moral? Because it is a pure extension of our autonomy – and there is nothing greater than freedom.
In his book Metaphysics of Morals, Kant expresses that neither state, nor society can exist without laws. Kant’s view on crime and punishment is as follows:
“If there is no law, there is no society and no state. Therefore enforcement of the of the law, which is the society’s foundation, means protection of the society and the state. Thus, any person violating the law loses the right to be a society member and consequently must be deemed guilty and punished.”